About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
u.s. president to visit there. while in cambodia, the president is going to be meeting with a leaders at a dinner of the asian summit. and yesterday he made a historic meeting in myanmar where he met with parliament elected leader aun san suu kyi. >> this is not an endorsement of the burmese government, but it is an acknowledgment that there is a process under way inside of that country that even a year and a half, two years ago, nobody foresaw. >> meanwhile back home in washington, congress is off for a week for the thanksgiving holiday, lawmakers are vowing to get to the bottom of intelligence questions in the immediate wake of the deadly attack of a u.s. consulate in libya, including whether ambassador susan rice's so-called talking points were altared the weekend after she gave that announcem of the attack. >> she didn't know anything about the attack in benghazi and the most politically compliant person. i don't know what she knew, but i know that the story she told was misleading. >> the debate on the hill intensified by general david petraeus' testimony friday th
impact on his testimony? he said no. >> but the focus of the hearing was the deadly attack of the u.s. consulate in benghazi and congressman dutch ruppersberger saying the former cia director made it clear there was terrorist involvement. >> he reinforced the fact that initially, the first 24 hours, he felt at that point or the cia felt at that point that this was a protest as a result of what happened with the film with egypt. he clarified that after more information came in, there was not a protest. >> general petraeus' testimony comes today the morning after cia acting director michael morell and james clapper the director of national int intelligence went before members of congress in two other hearings and hours after attorney general eric holder defended the decision not to bring members of congress into the loop sooner. >> we follow the facts. we do not share outside the justice department, outside the fbi the facts of ongoing investigations. we made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security. >> let's jump right in an
, the u.s. embassies in tanzania responsibled. susan rice is certainly feeling heat over that role and security issues about those embassies. she was the assistant secretary of state for african-americans within the clintoned a hin strags at that time. so what is your response to those attacks of susan rice calling those incidents into question present day? >> well, assistant secretary of africa handles policy towards africa. policy towards kenya. towards south africa. sudan. an assistant secretary is not intimately involved with security. and in this case it was terrorist attack. yes, she's aware of some of the issues, but that's not her direct responsibility. she's worried about american policy. at the time we were dealing with a lot of issues in south africa in the c ochlco this. congo, a number of piece keeping operations. i'm not saying she shouldn't be aware of security issues, but this is not a matter that a policy person directly has responsibility. so it's unfair to target her on those issues, also. >> always great to have you on. >>> and make sure to tune into andrea mitc
minister, the prime minister assuring president obama according from what we're hearing from u.s. officials, there would not be a full-scale ground assault into gaza unless hamas escalated its moves into southern israel. meaning the rocket attacks. we heard an israeli defense force spokeswoman who said we are currently training and preparing for ground possibilities. which one is it? >> well first of all, military, generally speaking will always, this is their job, and i say this as someone who served in the military, you always have to have a contingency plan. so the fact that for 75 people, 75,000 israeli reservists were authorized to be recruited by the idf. it doesn't mean that the idf is going to use them tomorrow. regarding your first question, the israeli cabinet, the commander-in-chief, gave the israeli defense forces a clear mandate, to remove the threat that we view to be of strategic nature. to remove the threat of rockets and missiles coming into israel from gaza. but the mandate was not limited in time or in scope. so certainly the possibility of an israeli ground, ground force
was trying to get at is u.s. involvement and engagement to produce a complete peace agreement. it would be great to be able to produce that. what's needed at this point, frankly, is for egypt, which has the real leverage on hamas to get hamas to change its behavior. that's the first essential step. if you have calm, then you can begin to deal with the larger questions. if you don't have calm, you're going to deal with a wider conflict. >> do you believe the administration will engage with more intensity? >> i think the administration -- >> in this coming administration. >> well, i think that in -- look, i think the administration is going to deal with this issue because if you don't deal with the issue, you see what happens. one of the things we've learned a long time ago about the middle east is if the middle least is left to its own devices, sooner or later it imposes itself upon you. i think there will be an effort. the united states can't make peace. it's the two parties that have to make the peace. the united states can help to create a circumstance, a context. the united states ca
and spending cuts that if unaddressed could send the u.s. back into a recession. now, if we do dive over this cliff, here's what could happen. first it could cost the average household about $3500 in taxes. second the economy, it could lose 800,000 jobs. and, third, for those already out of work, 2.1 million americans would lose unemployment benefits and right now we're 47 days away from the deadline to prevent all of that. joining me from columbia, south carolina, msnbc contributor jimmy williams with more on why it matters. so, jimmy, "usa today" did this great chart that breaks it all down, the spending or these tax and spending changes go into effect, because americans across the board are going to be affected on this from the top 1% to the nation's poorest so how likely is it that this will happen? >> well, i don't think it's likely that it happens because i think both sides have a hell of a lot to lose. the president having just come off a re-election and gaining seats in the house and the senate, i think that he has political capital. he would lose a lot of that capital if, in fac
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)